Read a full Empryo docs page or an exact section as Markdown or plain text. Use selectors returned by search_docs/list_docs; empty anchor means introduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| anchor | No | ||
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it can return a full page or an exact section, supports two text formats, and defines the 'empty anchor' default. It does not describe error behavior, but the annotation coverage lessens that burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the core action, output format, and the key selector/anchor usage rule with no filler. The most important behavioral detail, full page vs exact section, is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a read-only docs tool: it covers scope, output format, selector usage, and the essential default for anchor. A small gap is that it does not state what happens when 'format' is omitted, but the schema and sibling references make the tool callable without that detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full parameter meaning and does so well. It explains that 'page' is a docs page chosen via selectors, 'anchor' selects an exact section with empty meaning introduction, and 'format' maps to Markdown or plain text. This goes beyond the raw schema and gives actionable guidance for all three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('Empryo docs page'), and scope ('full page' or 'exact section'), and clarifies output formats ('Markdown or plain text'). It also creates separation from the sibling search/list tools by saying selectors are returned by those tools, so the agent knows read_docs is for retrieving content, not for discovering it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear workflow context: use selectors returned by search_docs/list_docs, and an empty anchor means the introduction. This implies when read_docs should be used after searching or listing, though it does not explicitly state an exclusion like 'use search_docs to find pages.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: current_release reports the release version, list_docs browses structure, read_docs retrieves content, and search_docs finds relevant sections. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Three tools follow a consistent verb_docs pattern (list_docs, read_docs, search_docs), while current_release deviates by describing the resource rather than an action. The overall naming is still predictable and readable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a documentation server: discover, browse, read, and check the current release. Each tool serves a distinct part of the documentation workflow without redundancy.
The surface covers the full read-oriented documentation lifecycle: search to find content, list to navigate structure, read to retrieve content, and current_release to know the version context. There are no obvious missing operations for a read-only docs server.